Ohio Association of Pupil Services Administrators

OHIO ASSOCIATION OF PUPIL SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

December 12, 2014

The following is a brief summary of the various activities of the OAPSA Executive Director from the September 26thExecutiveBoard meeting and OAPSA Conferenceto the present; approximately two and one-half months. Further detail is available upon request.

Following the September meeting, there were many activities related to getting ready for the exhibit space at the October 15 & 16 OEC Leadership Conference. Our brochure was updated for the 2014 -2015 school year prior to the September OAPSA Conference and the three-panel table display was also updated to reflect changes in officers, meeting dates, etc. I set up the OAPSA exhibit prior to 8:00 AM on October 15th and spent the entire day at the exhibit until approximately 5:00 PM. Our booth experienced a lot of traffic; many people stopped in to ask about OAPSA and to take a brochure and membership form. The next morning, October 16th, I was at the booth from 8:00 AM to Noon when the exhibits closed. The traffic on Thursday morning was considerably lighter than the prior day. Overall, this day-and-a-half exhibit was an excellent opportunity to talk with existing OAPSA members and also to talk with potential members who stopped by for information. More than 200 OAPSA brochures were distributed and nearly 100 membership forms were picked up.

On October 23rd, I attended the second meeting of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) meeting in Columbus. I am serving on that team as OAPSA’s representative. There are about 30 people involved in this process, about half of whom are from various divisions within ODE. The other half represents a mixture of SST, ESC, parent, and statewide organization representatives. At this second meeting there were three representatives from OSEP (federal level). They described a process known as “Theory of Action” which is a rationale for guidance to states and a vision for expected outcomes. It is written in a “if…”, “then…” format. The primary strands are leadership, collaboration, technical assistance, and accountability. The overall focus is on Results Driven Accountability.

A second SSIP survey had been distributed containing questions based on the nine areas of outcomes identified at our first meeting in mid-September. As before, approximately 50% of those surveyed responded. The top area receiving support was Accelerated Learning, the second area was college and career readiness, and the third was individualized learning. Fact-sheet packets for each of these three areas were reviewed. We then went through a process of “mapping” which involved the likelihood of one activity or area of focus having an impact on another activity or area. A multiple series of votes (“yes”, “no”, “maybe”) were taken for a large number of combinations of activities or areas. Depending on the strength of the likelihood of one outcome activity having an impact on another, an overall “map” was produced. Sue Zake said that OEC / ODE staff will review all of these factors and then will identify which of these strategies need to be further developed. It was expected that the team SSIP team might meet one more time in December but no date has been set thus far. OSEP will continue to monitor this process.

On November 18th, I attended the Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities (OCECD) Annual Meeting in Columbus. In addition to typical business such as setting the calendar schedule of meetings for this coming year and approving clarifying changes in OCECD’s constitution and by-laws, there were two issues that generated a considerable amount of concern.

First is the current so-called “five of eight” rule where a district is required to have at least five of eight categories of school specialty services such as gym, library, visiting teacher, media specialists, music, school nurse, social worker, etc. per 1,000 students. There is current consideration by the State Board of Education to eliminate this rule and leave it up to local boards of education to make determinations of which of these service categories they will offer without any minimal requirements. Concern was expressed that reducing these services could have a negative impact on students with special needs. Several state-wide organizations are supporting the elimination of the “five of eight” rule with the intention that these decisions would be made at the local level.

Additional concern was expressed that there may be a trend within the State Board of Education to further reduce requirements possibly including ratios for related services and service caseloads with the thought of making those local control determinations. These changes are attributed to the influence of Republicans on the State Board of Education who now have a majority.There are still many questions and unresolved issues related to the current Caseloads and Ratios situation.

Based on these changing conditions, it was proposed that the Ohio Coalition take action to have caseloads and ratios placed in legislation so these numbers are not vulnerable as they currently are as rules. There was discussion about the feasibility of the Coalition moving ahead with an effort to put caseloads and ratios in legislation. This would be a proactive move on the part of the Coalition.

It was suggested that an investigation be conducted to determine if there are resources available that would help clarify and document some of these issues and concerns. For example, there may be studies from the past that were funded by ODE that may help support our position.

In discussion of whether there should be an attempt to change some of the numbers in current ratios and caseloads or whether the numbers should remain the same, it was pointed out that reductions in caseloads and ratios would generally result in increasing the number of staff members required and therefore adding to the budgets of school districts. This could create a difficult challenge for the proposed legislation. It was generally agreed that even maintaining the current numbers and having them be in legislation would be an improvement over the present situation with them being in rules. Transition services as a related service was identified as an area that should be included in the legislation.

Thus far, 14 OAPSA members have signed up for Ashland University graduate credit; nine have registered for two hours ofgraduate credit meaning they must attend all five days of meetings (two days in February). Five have registered for one hour of credit meaning they need to attend at least three conference days to earn the credit. I sent confirming emails to most of these members. There will be another opportunity to sign up for one hour of graduate credit at out December conference.

I participated in an Executive Board conference call on December 3rd.

The Committee of Practitioners (CoP)met on December 4th. Both Dr. Karen Hall and I represent OAPSA on the CoP. There was much discussion about the process for renewing Ohio’s ESEA (NCLB) waiver in the next several months. This year it was a one-year waiver but this next one will be for a period of three years. There has been no movement in Congress regarding reauthorization of ESEA and it is likely that it will be several years before that happens. The district report card is being revised with changes for this year and additional changes for next year. Some of these changes reflect the PARCC assessment implications. More subjects will generate value added data this year and more will be added next year. The lists of these subjects have not been finalized for release.

There is a focus on Educator Equity because it is clear that more poor and minority students are being taught by less effective teachers. Overall, 98.7% of Ohio’s teachers are regarded as “HQT”. About 130 more school districts are using OTES this year over last year, but there are still about 30 districts that are not using OTES, primarily because of negotiated agreement issues. The ETEP (Electronic Teacher Evaluation Process) has been well received and most school districts are using it. A question was asked about “shared attribution” and it was acknowledged there are many questions and much confusion about this approach. Its use can affect the way data are reported.

We are now in “lame duck” legislative session and there will be attempts at pushing selected legislation through in a short period of time. It is not anticipated that the bill to repeal the Common Core will see any action soon but there appears to be a moderate level of support for it in the legislature so it may be reintroduced in the next session. The bill to limit the number of hours a student may spend in assessment situations is in a similar position.

There was considerable discussion regarding proposed changes to the process by which the proportionate amount of a district’s federal funds are shared with non-public schools located in the district. ODE’s NS3 process is likely to include the collection of data on students that are on the ASP and JPSNSP and attending non-public schools and there was concern expressed about the impact that could have in determining the amount of federal funds to be shared with a given non-public school. It was stated that students on the ASP and JPSNSP give up FAPE in the district in which they live, but from a federal perspective, they are still eligible students. This issue needs to be clarified and resolved. There is another proposed change in the way in which the school district communicates with the non-public schools in is area through a web-based software program. Currently, both entities can “edit” the data and conceivably one entity could make changes and submit the data to ODE without the other entity being aware of the changes. It is proposed that once an agreement on the percentage of shared funds is reached, it will be “locked in” and no changes can be made unless both parties are involved.

Submitted by Dr. John Opperman

OAPSA Executive Director

ExecDir/ExecDirReport121214